The "T's" and "Y's" Of the King James Bible By Dave Reese

This section of the Forum is for Bible studies that are based on the outlines for sound Bible Believing doctrine as highlighted in the Forum Rules section.
Divisive topics will be moderated to avoid contentions and strife 2 Timothy 2:15 , Proverbs 13:10

The "T's" and "Y's" Of the King James Bible By Dave Reese

Postby Chette » Wed Jun 25, 2014 10:28 pm

First a little disclaimer.  I am not in agreement with all of Dave Reese teaching.  I have met this man he is a true KJB Believer and as such produces some pretty interesting teaching.

Dave Reese was the teacher of Doug Stauffer.  Most of Stauffer's material comes from Dave Reese's teaching though Doug has yet to recognize Dave in any manner as the one who taught him one book rightly divided.

Any way this article came out and it was really interesting and well done enough to post here for those who like to understand the English of the KJB and would like some apologetic material to use against those who claim the the KJB English is outdated and needs to be updated.

The "T's" and "Y's" of the King James Bible

The Bible was translated into English over a period of 500 years, the process began c. 1000 A.D. in part and culminated with the Authorized Version of 1611. Along with Hebrew, English is the only other major language that developed at the same time as its Bible. The difference is that the Hebrew language of Israel had no other written literature prior to the Pentateuch; the early Anglo-Saxon had few sources but with Gutenberg’s moveable type printing (1349A.D.) modern English had many printed sources from Europe.

Although not a major intent by the variety of English translators, many helps to Bible study found their way into the English Bible. In addition, the King James Bible of 1611 contains several critical linguistic helps, otherwise unknown to those without knowledge of Hebrew and Greek. This study covers one of those helps: the number of the second person pronoun.

Why does the King James Bible (KJB) have “thee” “thou” “thy” etc., and also have “you” “your”, etc.,? Primarily, because the 54 translators (1604-1611) were concerned with translating the pure words of God. Misunderstanding of this feature abounds, chiefly because those who study grammar and literature in the secular field, fail to see that the KJB was not written in strict English of the 15th century. The English in the KJB is a form of English not spoken by anyone in any century; it is Biblical English. Read the sermons and other writings by even the KJB translators, and you will find their usage of English is markedly different from their translation of the Hebrew and Greek into English.

“In late Middle English and early Modern English, the singular pronouns thou, thee, and thine (like the French tu forms) served as markers of intimacy and informality. (Thou was the subject form, thee the object form, and thy/thine the possessive.) In contrast, the plural you (like French vous) signified politeness and respect–or downright submissiveness: “Social inferiors used you to their superiors, who reciprocated by using thou” (The Oxford History of English, 2006).

This was true regarding common English usage, but the Bible is not common English. Others have imagined that “Thou” “Thee” “Thy” “Thine” were used only when speaking to Deity. This was misunderstood due to the fact that the “T” pronoun signifies a singular pronoun and rightly used when addressing God, who is one LORD. (Deuteronomy 6:4)

When the KJB reader sees a pronoun beginning with “t”, it is singular; a “y” is plural. Hebrew and Greek have distinct singular and plural identification of the second person pronouns, so does the KJB. Translation of the word of God demands the utmost ability and care to be sure the target language carries the same meaning as the former. This may not seem to be important at first glance, but Bible doctrine hangs on the proper understanding of the difference between whether one person is spoken to or a plural number is addressed.

One example is in Luke 22:31-32:
31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:
32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. (King James Bible, AV 1611)(NOTE: Some may object that the KJB also inserted words that were not in the Hebrew or Greek texts. Although not the purpose of our study here, the KJB actually has six reasons for italicized words. All languages have peculiarities that make a word for word translation impossible. These are understood in the base language, but in translation to a target language there must be added words that make the original intent and meaning clear. The KJB put all such words into italics, thereby showing the honesty of the translators to the reader and providing another amazing Bible study principle. Compare Deuteronomy and Matthew: Deuteronomy 8:3 with Matthew 4:4. The Hebrew has no “word” in the language, it is understood by the Hebrew reader. Greek does have “word” and it is essential to the Greek and English. When Jesus quoted Deuteronomy 8:3 in Greek, He removed the italics and thereby proved the inspiration and authority of the future KJB OT quote!)

KING JAMES BIBLE: 31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you (PLURAL–all of the apostles), that he may sift you (PLURAL) as wheat:
32 But I have prayed for thee (SINGULAR-Peter), that thy (SINGULAR-Peter) faith fail not: and when thou (SINGULAR-Peter) art converted, strengthen thy(SINGULAR-Peter) brethren. (KJB)

NIV: 31 “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”
NIV ANALYSIS: 31 “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked (“HAS ASKED” AND “HATH DESIRED” ARE DIFFERENT) to sift (THE FORCE OF “HAVE YOU” REMOVED. SATAN DESIRED THE PERSONS, THE “SIFTING” OCCURS AFTER HE HAS THE PERSONS) all of you as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you, Simon,(THE NIV HAD TO INSERT “SIMON” WHICH IS NOT IN ANY GREEK TEXT) that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back (“TURN BACK” IS NOT THE SAME AS “CONVERTED”), strengthen your brothers.”

AMPLIFIED BIBLE: 31 Simon, Simon (Peter), listen! Satan [e]has asked excessively that [all of] you be given up to him [out of the power and keeping of God], that he might sift [all of] you like grain,
32 But I have prayed especially for you [Peter], that your [own] faith may not fail; and when you yourself have turned again, strengthen and establish your brethren.
AMPLIFIED BIBLE ANALYSIS: 31 Simon, Simon (Peter), listen! (“LISTEN” IS NOT IN ANY GREEK TEXT) Satan [e]has asked excessively (“EXCESSIVELY” IS ADDED TO GIVE THE SIMPLE “ASKED” INTENSIVE FORCE) that [all of] you be given up to him [out of the power and keeping of God], that he might sift [all of] you like grain, (AMP. BIBLE MISSES THE POINT OF “HAVE YOU” JUST AS THE NIV DOES. THE GENERAL “GRAIN” IS NOT THE SAME AS THE SPECIFIC “WHEAT”. ALSO, THE TERM “WHEAT” IN OTHER PASSAGES IS ESSENTIAL TO PROPER INTERPRETATION.)
32 But I have prayed especially (“ESPECIALLY” IS NOT IN ANY GREEK TEXT) for you [Peter], that your [own] faith may not fail; and when you yourself have turned again, (“TURNED AGAIN” IS NOT THE SAME AS “CONVERTED”) strengthen and establish (“ESTABLISH ” ADDED) your brethren.

Other errors and the same in ALL the so-called translations could be mentioned, but the point is made: the modern translations have done nothing but repeated the same sin of Eve in Genesis 3.
  • Accepted the doubting attitude of what God said: “Yea, hath God said…”(Genesis 3:1)
  • Added words to what God said: “…neither shall ye touch it…”(Genesis 3:3)
  • Subtracting words from what God said: “…surely…”(Genesis 3:3)
  • Changing what God said: “…surely…” changed to “…lest…”(Genesis 3:3)
  • Accepted the “new” translation: “Ye shall not surely die…”(Genesis 3:4)
“Updated” and “new”, as well as “easy to understand” English translations since the late 1700′s have done nothing but remove the pure words of God from the readers, and substituted careless, confusing and deceptive terms that hide those words, words the Lord Jesus Christ deemed so important, He said:
“But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” (Matthew 4:4)
“Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” (Matthew 24:35)
“5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” (Proverbs 30:5-6)
“Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. (Deuteronomy 4:2)
“And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” (Revelation 22:19)

Is the KJB hard to understand? Someone said: “What bothers me about the Bible is not what I don’t understand, what bothers me is all that I do understand.” The KJB is rated today at 5th grade reading level–it was 3rd grade thirty years ago. I know two former Bible college students, who in their adult years learned to read by the King James Bible.

Part two- PHILEMON (Illustration of the second person pronoun in the KJB)

1 Paul, a prisoner of Jesus Christ, and Timothy our brother, unto Philemon our dearly beloved, and fellowlabourer,
2 And to our beloved Apphia, and Archippus our fellowsoldier, and to the church in thy house:
3 Grace to you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
4 I thank my God, making mention of thee always in my prayers,
5 Hearing of thy love and faith, which thou hast toward the Lord Jesus, and toward all saints;
6 That the communication of thy faith may become effectual by the acknowledging of every good thing which is in you in Christ Jesus.Why ‘Thee’ and “You” vss. 1-6?1. Philemon is the leader. (church meets in his house) “unto Philemon”, but “to Apphia, and Archippus”.
2. The letter is a personal request to Philemon and of special interest to him.
v.6 The best “communication of thy (Philemon’s) faith requires “every good thing which is in you”(all the church. No man should try to be isolated, a secluded worker in Christ Jesus.)
7 For we have great joy and consolation in thy love, because the bowels of the saints are refreshed by thee, brother. “Bowels” from “bowl”, the major organs of body protected by the skeletal frame, shoulders, backbone, ribs, pelvis. Emotions and feelings stem from here. (heart rate, stomach unsettled, largest nerve network of body in the digestive system–called the “Second Brain”.)
8 Wherefore, though I might be much bold in Christ to enjoin thee that which is convenient,
9 Yet for love’s sake I rather beseech thee, being such an one as Paul the aged, and now also a prisoner of Jesus Christ.
“enjoin” is to command, “beseech” is to make a plea, or request.
10 I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds:
11 Which in time past was to thee unprofitable, but now profitable to thee and to me:
12 Whom I have sent again: thou therefore receive him, that is, mine own bowels:
13 Whom I would have retained with me, that in thy stead he might have ministered unto me in the bonds of the gospel: 14 But without thy mind would I do nothing; that thy benefit should not be as it were of necessity, but willingly.
15 For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldest receive him for ever;
16 Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh, and in the Lord?
17 If thou count me therefore a partner, receive him as myself.
18 If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee ought, put that on mine account;
19 I Paul have written it with mine own hand, I will repay it: albeit I do not say to thee how thou owest unto me even thine own self besides.
20 Yea, brother, let me have joy of thee in the Lord: refresh my bowels in the Lord.
21 Having confidence in thy obedience I wrote unto thee, knowing that thou wilt also do more than I say.
22 But withal prepare me also a lodging: for I trust that through your prayers I shall be given unto you.
23 There salute thee Epaphras, my fellowprisoner in Christ Jesus;
24 Marcus, Aristarchus, Demas, Lucas, my fellowlabourers.
25 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen.

The book is the last of Paul’s epistles and records a living illustration of 2 great doctrines in this age of grace: Imputation and Justification. Romans 5:6-9. Onesimus (name means “profitable”), a servant in Philemon’s house stole something valuable. He ran away and was arrested in Rome. Paul, in prison for preaching the gospel, led Onesimus to the Lord. Paul writes this letter to Philemon and sends it to Philemon by Onesimus. Paul illustrates imputation by taking the cost of replacing the goods upon himself. Philemon is to receive Onesimus with as much love as he would have given to Paul, had Paul been able to come. Philemon is to receive Onesimus now as “above a servant, a brother beloved.” That is Justification. The debt is paid by another (imputation) and the previous offender is accepted, above and beyond what he was before (justification).


If you are interested in visiting his site it is found at http://www.right-division.com/
Psalm 49:3 My mouth shall speak of wisdom; and the meditation of my heart [shall be] of understanding.

www.chettesblog.wordpress.com
User avatar
Chette
 
Posts: 890
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 1:08 am
Location: Virginia

Re: The "T's" and "Y's" Of the King James Bible By Dave Rees

Postby Diligent » Sat Jun 28, 2014 3:08 pm

Chette wrote:Dave Reese was the teacher of Doug Stauffer.  Most of Stauffer's material comes from Dave Reese's teaching though Doug has yet to recognize Dave in any manner as the one who taught him one book rightly divided.


This is what it says in the acknowledgements section of One Book Rightly Divided:

"Also, a special thanks to Dr. Dave Reese who taught me the principles of right division."

I would hope that qualifies as some manner of recognition.

On the topic of your post, you may find this video I did interesting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgM9OSPKFAg
-Brandon
Editor of The King James Bible Page
Author of SwordSearcher Bible Software
Psalm 138:2
User avatar
Diligent
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu May 05, 2011 2:46 pm
Location: Oklahoma

Re: The "T's" and "Y's" Of the King James Bible By Dave Rees

Postby George » Sat Jun 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Aloha Brother Chette,

Sorry for the delay in answering your Post but I have been extremely busy lately. Thanks for the informative post concerning some little known facts about the King James Bible. Many of the points brought up by brother Dave Reese are unknown to the vast majority of today’s Christians. However there are a few things that concern me:

1.  QUESTION: How is it that you know for a fact that “Dave Reese was the teacher of Doug Stauffer”? And that  “Most of Stauffer's material comes from Dave Reese's teaching though Doug has yet to recognize Dave in any manner as the one who taught him one book rightly divided.” Did someone tell you these things? And why does it matter WHO taught Doug Stauffer about the KJB and the ‘Which Bible’ issue?

After being a born again child of God for ten years, I first learned about the ‘Which Bible’ issue from brother Peter Ruckman back in 1968; and, to begin with, I gleaned a whole lot from him concerning the controversy over the infallibility of the King James Bible. But over the next 20 plus years (1968-1988+) I learned a whole lot more concerning the issue from numerous other Christian men (many of whom are now at home with the Lord).

Having read books by all of the following men over the last 45 years:

IN THE PAST:
John W. Burgon, Edward Miller, F. H. Scrivener, Herman Hoskier, Bishop Wordsworth, Canon Cook, Sir Robert Anderson, Philip Mauro, Joseph C. Philpot, George Sayles Bishop, Benjamin C. Wilkinson, Robert Dick Wilson, Edward F. Hills, and J.J Ray.

PRESENT DAY:
Terence H. Brown, Henry Coray, Zane C. Hodges, Alfred Martin, David Otis Fuller, Peter S. Ruckman, David Fountain, Gordon P. Gardiner, Wilbur N. Pickering, Donald T. Clarke, Bruce Cummins, Dick Cimino, Barry Burton, Perry F. Rockwood, Billy Bartlett, Larry Bartlett Herbert Noe, William P. Grady, Thomas Holland, Floyd Nolan Jones, Lawrence M. Vance, Douglas T. Stauffer, Kent Brandenburg, Jack Moorman, Michael Maynard, John Hinto, and Edward R. DeVries.

There isn’t anyway that anyone could possibly determine as to just exactly who was the most influential person in my lengthy and intensive studies concerning the ‘Which Bible’ subject, especially since I’m not so sure myself. So what is the point of claiming that “Most of Stauffer's material comes from Dave Reese's teaching”, if it’s practically impossible to know that for a fact for sure? In addition, if a person goes to the bother of reading most of those men’s works it becomes obvious that there is a whole lot of repetition and overlapping in their books since there are just so many facts (historical or otherwise) concerning the subject.  

Concerning a couple of statements Dave Reese made:

2. Brother Reese stated: “When Jesus quoted Deuteronomy 8:3 in Greek, He removed the italics and thereby proved the inspiration and authority of the future KJB OT quote!”

While I appreciate brother Reese’s sincere belief in the perfection and infallibility of the King James Bible, the fact is - no one can prove that when the Lord Jesus Christ spoke to His disciples or to God’s people (i.e. Hebrews/Israelites/Jews) in general  that He ever spoke to any of them in “Greek” (or ‘Aramaic’ for that matter). Although I am sure that the Lord knew various languages which were in use in and around Israel at that time, whenever He spoke to His people (i.e. Hebrews/Israelites/Jews) I sincerely doubt that He addressed them in any other language other than the Hebrew tongue (See: Acts 21:40; 22:2; 26:14).

Now I cannot prove that the Lord Jesus Christ spoke only Hebrew to the Jews of His time, but considering their (i.e. Hebrews/Israelites/Jews) basic antipathy (i.e. aversion and repugnance) towards all Gentiles, it’s quite a stretch to assume that Christ spoke to the Jews of his time in the language of people whom they disliked or even despised! It is far more likely that the Lord spoke to the Jews in Hebrew and when Luke WROTE his Gospel (plus the Book of Acts) that he (Luke) wrote those Books in Greek since it is quite obvious that the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts are directed more towards a Gentile audience rather than a Jewish one (see Luke 1:1-4 & Acts 1:1-5).  

Regardless, brother Reese made a declarative statement which claimed that: “When Jesus quoted Deuteronomy 8:3 in Greek, He removed the italics and thereby proved the inspiration and authority of the future KJB OT quote!”, while there isn’t anyway on earth that he could PROVE what he claimed! So my question simply is: WHY does brother Reese (and the vast majority of today’s Bible preachers, teachers, and commentators) make statements and claims which, upon examination, cannot be proven? This is a common practice amongst the vast majority of today’s Bible preachers, teachers, and commentators, which only leads to confusion and error. If a Bible teacher or commentator is going to speculate on a particular spiritual issue or matter it would be far better for them to qualify their remarks rather than make declarative statements based upon assumptions that cannot be proved!.  

3. Dave Reese quotes the Apostle Paul’s Epistle to Philemon and makes an additional declarative statement following verse six which cannot be proved:
     
Part two- PHILEMON (Illustration of the second person pronoun in the KJB)

      1 Paul, a prisoner of Jesus Christ, and Timothy our brother, unto Philemon our dearly beloved, and fellowlabourer,
      2 And to our beloved Apphia, and Archippus our fellowsoldier, and to the church in thy house:
      3 Grace to you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
      4 I thank my God, making mention of thee always in my prayers,
      5 Hearing of thy love and faith, which thou hast toward the Lord Jesus, and toward all saints;
      6 That the communication of thy faith may become effectual by the acknowledging of every good thing which is in you in Christ Jesus. Why ‘Thee’ and “You” vss. 1-6?

      1. Philemon is the leader. (church meets in his house) “unto Philemon”, but “to Apphia, and Archippus”.

      2. The letter is a personal request to Philemon and of special interest to him.

      v.6 The best “communication of thy (Philemon’s) faith requires “every good thing which is in you”(all the church. No man should try to be isolated, a secluded worker
      in Christ Jesus.)”

QUESTION: Where does it say (in the Holy Bible) that “Philemon is the leader (church meets in his house)”? If it doesn’t say that “Philemon is the leader”, WHY does Dave Reese state that he is? WHY do today’s Bible preachers, teachers, and commentators continually make declarative statements based upon speculation, hypothesis, and assumptions? WHY? Just because a church meets in a person’s (or persons plural) house does not necessarily mean that that person (or persons plural) is “the leader”. For example:

      1 Corinthians 16:19 ¶ The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.

In the case of Aquila and Priscilla, are they BOTH “LEADERS” in the church? After all the church met “in their house”! Dave Reese’s statement (or claim) is ludicrous and absurd! This is the kind of reasoning (which is often put forth by Bible preachers, teachers, and commentators) that makes us genuine Bible believers look like fools in the eyes of the world.

What is perfectly clear from the context of the Apostle Paul’s greeting is that he addressed his letter to “Philemon”, and in addition he acknowledged “our beloved Apphia” (whoever he, or more likely she, is), and “Archippus our fellowsoldier”, and “the church in thy (i.e. Philemon’s) house”. No where’s in the entire Epistle does it say that “Philemon is the leader”! The Bible means what it says and it doesn’t mean what it doesn’t say – so why state (or claim) something that cannot be verified by Scripture?

4. Brother Reese makes another assumption based on speculation:
The book is the last of Paul’s epistles and records a living illustration of 2 great doctrines in this age of grace: Imputation and Justification. Romans 5:6-9. Onesimus (name means “profitable”), a servant in Philemon’s house stole something valuable. He ran away and was arrested in Rome. Paul, in prison for preaching the gospel, led Onesimus to the Lord. Paul writes this letter to Philemon and sends it to Philemon by Onesimus. Paul illustrates imputation by taking the cost of replacing the goods upon himself. Philemon is to receive Onesimus with as much love as he would have given to Paul, had Paul been able to come. Philemon is to receive Onesimus now as “above a servant, a brother beloved.” That is Justification. The debt is paid by another (imputation) and the previous offender is accepted, above and beyond what he was before (justification).

Again, where in Paul’s letter to Philemon does it ever say that “Onesimus (name means “profitable”), a servant in Philemon’s house stole something valuable”? I just read the letter through two times, and no where’s in the letter does it clarify what Onesimus’ offense (or crime) was. However, it appears that Onesimus was in prison with the Apostle Paul and Paul witnessed to him and he got saved. WHY does brother Reese state that “Onesimus (name means “profitable”), a servant in Philemon’s house stole something valuable” when the Scriptures left out his (Onesimus’) offense? WHY not just stick with the context of the text rather than embellish (i.e. ADD to) it?

This is why I no longer read the works of the men who continually make declarative statements concerning God’s Holy words which cannot be supported with facts (i.e. other Scriptures). If I have to be continually on guard against error when reading a man’s writings - why bother? It’s a waste of my time to have to continually discern between the truth and error in their writings.
  
Brother Chette, I appreciate your disclaimer:

      “First a little disclaimer.  I am not in agreement with all of Dave Reese teaching.  I have met this man he is a true KJB Believer and as such produces some pretty interesting teaching.

While I might appreciate Dave Reese’s efforts to promote and defend the King James Bible, I cannot recommend a man who is so careless in his handling of God’s Holy words, since it is quite obvious that some of his teachings (i.e. private interpretations) can lead to egregious errors. The Holy Bible is perfectly clear when it comes to speaking and teaching God's Holy word.

Titus 2:1 ¶ But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine:

1 Timothy 1:3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,

1 Timothy 6:3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
George Anderson    http://www.thywordistruthkjv.com/

. . . . . yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written . . . . . Romans 3:4
User avatar
George
 
Posts: 639
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 12:17 am
Location: Lancaster, Ohio

Re: The "T's" and "Y's" Of the King James Bible By Dave Rees

Postby Chette » Sun Jun 29, 2014 12:56 pm

Diligent wrote:
Chette wrote:Dave Reese was the teacher of Doug Stauffer.  Most of Stauffer's material comes from Dave Reese's teaching though Doug has yet to recognize Dave in any manner as the one who taught him one book rightly divided.


This is what it says in the acknowledgements section of One Book Rightly Divided:

"Also, a special thanks to Dr. Dave Reese who taught me the principles of right division."

I would hope that qualifies as some manner of recognition.

On the topic of your post, you may find this video I did interesting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgM9OSPKFAg


Great Video Diligent,

Well about time I have one from the first printing and one from the Printing they did in the Philippines which was a paperback version and that special thanks is not in there.

Good to see him acknowledge him finally.

I think that the removal of the thee and thous and thine has caused confusion and it is at the root why there is a replacement theology as well as some who just take certain promises for the church today.
Last edited by Chette on Sun Jun 29, 2014 2:18 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Psalm 49:3 My mouth shall speak of wisdom; and the meditation of my heart [shall be] of understanding.

www.chettesblog.wordpress.com
User avatar
Chette
 
Posts: 890
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 1:08 am
Location: Virginia

Re: The "T's" and "Y's" Of the King James Bible By Dave Rees

Postby Chette » Sun Jun 29, 2014 1:46 pm

George wrote:Aloha Brother Chette,

Sorry for the delay in answering your Post but I have been extremely busy lately. Thanks for the informative post concerning some little known facts about the King James Bible. Many of the points brought up by brother Dave Reese are unknown to the vast majority of today’s Christians. However there are a few things that concern me:

Thank you Brother George for taking the time to share your observations with us, we deeply appreciate your input.

1.  QUESTION: How is it that you know for a fact that “Dave Reese was the teacher of Doug Stauffer”? And that  “Most of Stauffer's material comes from Dave Reese's teaching though Doug has yet to recognize Dave in any manner as the one who taught him one book rightly divided.” Did someone tell you these things? And why does it matter WHO taught Doug Stauffer about the KJB and the ‘Which Bible’ issue?

After being a born again child of God for ten years, I first learned about the ‘Which Bible’ issue from brother Peter Ruckman back in 1968; and, to begin with, I gleaned a whole lot from him concerning the controversy over the infallibility of the King James Bible. But over the next 20 plus years (1968-1988+) I learned a whole lot more concerning the issue from numerous other Christian men (many of whom are now at home with the Lord).

Having read books by all of the following men over the last 45 years:

IN THE PAST:
John W. Burgon, Edward Miller, F. H. Scrivener, Herman Hoskier, Bishop Wordsworth, Canon Cook, Sir Robert Anderson, Philip Mauro, Joseph C. Philpot, George Sayles Bishop, Benjamin C. Wilkinson, Robert Dick Wilson, Edward F. Hills, and J.J Ray.

PRESENT DAY:
Terence H. Brown, Henry Coray, Zane C. Hodges, Alfred Martin, David Otis Fuller, Peter S. Ruckman, David Fountain, Gordon P. Gardiner, Wilbur N. Pickering, Donald T. Clarke, Bruce Cummins, Dick Cimino, Barry Burton, Perry F. Rockwood, Billy Bartlett, Larry Bartlett Herbert Noe, William P. Grady, Thomas Holland, Floyd Nolan Jones, Lawrence M. Vance, Douglas T. Stauffer, Kent Brandenburg, Jack Moorman, Michael Maynard, John Hinto, and Edward R. DeVries.

There isn’t anyway that anyone could possibly determine as to just exactly who was the most influential person in my lengthy and intensive studies concerning the ‘Which Bible’ subject, especially since I’m not so sure myself. So what is the point of claiming that “Most of Stauffer's material comes from Dave Reese's teaching”, if it’s practically impossible to know that for a fact for sure? In addition, if a person goes to the bother of reading most of those men’s works it becomes obvious that there is a whole lot of repetition and overlapping in their books since there are just so many facts (historical or otherwise) concerning the subject.  

I received the info from reliable source.  It wasn't just that fact he was the classmate of my friend but that the material supplied them was somewhat plagiarized (I saw the material myself along side the first edition that my friend had) as he had the material and that material did show he copied a lot from his schooling under Dave Reese.  My point about making it clear that the Reese taught Stauffer was to add some interest in Reese's material.  The above post by Dilligent now sheds light in his later Editions of One Book he now gives a "special thanks to Reese" which was well over due.

Concerning a couple of statements Dave Reese made:

2. Brother Reese stated: “When Jesus quoted Deuteronomy 8:3 in Greek, He removed the italics and thereby proved the inspiration and authority of the future KJB OT quote!”

While I appreciate brother Reese’s sincere belief in the perfection and infallibility of the King James Bible, the fact is - no one can prove that when the Lord Jesus Christ spoke to His disciples or to God’s people (i.e. Hebrews/Israelites/Jews) in general  that He ever spoke to any of them in “Greek” (or ‘Aramaic’ for that matter). Although I am sure that the Lord knew various languages which were in use in and around Israel at that time, whenever He spoke to His people (i.e. Hebrews/Israelites/Jews) I sincerely doubt that He addressed them in any other language other than the Hebrew tongue (See: Acts 21:40; 22:2; 26:14).

Now I cannot prove that the Lord Jesus Christ spoke only Hebrew to the Jews of His time, but considering their (i.e. Hebrews/Israelites/Jews) basic antipathy (i.e. aversion and repugnance) towards all Gentiles, it’s quite a stretch to assume that Christ spoke to the Jews of his time in the language of people whom they disliked or even despised! It is far more likely that the Lord spoke to the Jews in Hebrew and when Luke WROTE his Gospel (plus the Book of Acts) that he (Luke) wrote those Books in Greek since it is quite obvious that the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts are directed more towards a Gentile audience rather than a Jewish one (see Luke 1:1-4 & Acts 1:1-5).  

Regardless, brother Reese made a declarative statement which claimed that: “When Jesus quoted Deuteronomy 8:3 in Greek, He removed the italics and thereby proved the inspiration and authority of the future KJB OT quote!”, while there isn’t anyway on earth that he could PROVE what he claimed! So my question simply is: WHY does brother Reese (and the vast majority of today’s Bible preachers, teachers, and commentators) make statements and claims which, upon examination, cannot be proven? This is a common practice amongst the vast majority of today’s Bible preachers, teachers, and commentators, which only leads to confusion and error. If a Bible teacher or commentator is going to speculate on a particular spiritual issue or matter it would be far better for them to qualify their remarks rather than make declarative statements based upon assumptions that cannot be proved!.

We do not have any proof what language Jesus spoke but when he quotes Scripture it most likely was in Hebrew.  I think these men make this claim of Greek because it was the common trade language of the day much like English is today.  Again I don't fully agree with Dave on his conclusion that Jesus Spoke Greek, but what I do think what Dave was pointing out was that the copies we have of the Old and New Testament provided by the the KJV translators showed that the quote in Duet had the word added but was provided in the Gospel writing.  This added word in the English KJV
was done by the translators and not proof it was there in either Hebrew or Greek, but if the KJV translators added it in the English KJV book of Duet but did not have to in the Gospel, they do show by their work that their source material of a Greek NT or any other Byzantine text they used shows the quote of Jesus may have in fact been accurate no matter which language Jesus spoke at that time.  I think we can give them all a little grace and not throw out the baby with the wash.
3. Dave Reese quotes the Apostle Paul’s Epistle to Philemon and makes an additional declarative statement following verse six which cannot be proved:
     
Part two- PHILEMON (Illustration of the second person pronoun in the KJB)

      1 Paul, a prisoner of Jesus Christ, and Timothy our brother, unto Philemon our dearly beloved, and fellowlabourer,
      2 And to our beloved Apphia, and Archippus our fellowsoldier, and to the church in thy house:
      3 Grace to you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
      4 I thank my God, making mention of thee always in my prayers,
      5 Hearing of thy love and faith, which thou hast toward the Lord Jesus, and toward all saints;
      6 That the communication of thy faith may become effectual by the acknowledging of every good thing which is in you in Christ Jesus. Why ‘Thee’ and “You” vss. 1-6?

      1. Philemon is the leader. (church meets in his house) “unto Philemon”, but “to Apphia, and Archippus”.

      2. The letter is a personal request to Philemon and of special interest to him.

      v.6 The best “communication of thy (Philemon’s) faith requires “every good thing which is in you”(all the church. No man should try to be isolated, a secluded worker in Christ Jesus.)”

QUESTION: Where does it say (in the Holy Bible) that “Philemon is the leader (church meets in his house)”? If it doesn’t say that “Philemon is the leader”, WHY does Dave Reese state that he is? WHY do today’s Bible preachers, teachers, and commentators continually make declarative statements based upon speculation, hypothesis, and assumptions? WHY? Just because a church meets in a person’s (or persons plural) house does not necessarily mean that that person (or persons plural) is “the leader”. For example:

      1 Corinthians 16:19 ¶ The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.

In the case of Aquila and Priscilla, are they BOTH “LEADERS” in the church? After all the church met “in their house”! Dave Reese’s statement (or claim) is ludicrous and absurd! This is the kind of reasoning (which is often put forth by Bible preachers, teachers, and commentators) that makes us genuine Bible believers look like fools in the eyes of the world.

What is perfectly clear from the context of the Apostle Paul’s greeting is that he addressed his letter to “Philemon”, and in addition he acknowledged “our beloved Apphia” (whoever he, or more likely she, is), and “Archippus our fellowsoldier”, and “the church in thy (i.e. Philemon’s) house”. No where’s in the entire Epistle does it say that “Philemon is the leader”! The Bible means what it says and it doesn’t mean what it doesn’t say – so why state (or claim) something that cannot be verified by Scripture?

I will have to agree and this again is one of the areas I don't fully agree.  His conclusion may be based on the fact that church is in his house and as you say assumes that position as such.  It is more than likely he is of the Elders along with the other two but that would be speculation as well.  If I am not mistaken Ruckman says the same leadership claim about Philemon and that too without proof.

4. Brother Reese makes another assumption based on speculation:
The book is the last of Paul’s epistles and records a living illustration of 2 great doctrines in this age of grace: Imputation and Justification. Romans 5:6-9. Onesimus (name means “profitable”), a servant in Philemon’s house stole something valuable. He ran away and was arrested in Rome. Paul, in prison for preaching the gospel, led Onesimus to the Lord. Paul writes this letter to Philemon and sends it to Philemon by Onesimus. Paul illustrates imputation by taking the cost of replacing the goods upon himself. Philemon is to receive Onesimus with as much love as he would have given to Paul, had Paul been able to come. Philemon is to receive Onesimus now as “above a servant, a brother beloved.” That is Justification. The debt is paid by another (imputation) and the previous offender is accepted, above and beyond what he was before (justification).

Again, where in Paul’s letter to Philemon does it ever say that “Onesimus (name means “profitable”), a servant in Philemon’s house stole something valuable”? I just read the letter through two times, and no where’s in the letter does it clarify what Onesimus’ offense (or crime) was. However, it appears that Onesimus was in prison with the Apostle Paul and Paul witnessed to him and he got saved. WHY does brother Reese state that “Onesimus (name means “profitable”), a servant in Philemon’s house stole something valuable” when the Scriptures left out his (Onesimus’) offense? WHY not just stick with the context of the text rather than embellish (i.e. ADD to) it?

This is why I no longer read the works of the men who continually make declarative statements concerning God’s Holy words which cannot be supported with facts (i.e. other Scriptures). If I have to be continually on guard against error when reading a man’s writings - why bother? It’s a waste of my time to have to continually discern between the truth and error in their writings.

We can also quote Ruckman in his Commentary book on Philemon, Where I read (if I remember correctly because I don't have the book with me but it is in my library in the Philippines) he too says that Onesimus stole something.  Should we then disregard Peter Ruckman wholly because of his erroneous statement as you suggest we do Dave Reese?  Don't we have to be constantly discerning with Ruckman's material as well?  Just a thought.  But here too we can be gracesful and get what is useful and disregard the assumptions.  We don't have to repeat the same mistakes as these men but they all have something we can glean from.
  
Brother Chette, I appreciate your disclaimer:

      “First a little disclaimer.  I am not in agreement with all of Dave Reese teaching.  I have met this man he is a true KJB Believer and as such produces some pretty interesting teaching.

While I might appreciate Dave Reese’s efforts to promote and defend the King James Bible, I cannot recommend a man who is so careless in his handling of God’s Holy words, since it is quite obvious that some of his teachings (i.e. private interpretations) can lead to egregious errors. The Holy Bible is perfectly clear when it comes to speaking and teaching God's Holy word.

But then you would have to agree then with the same assumptional errors found in Ruckman's and other mens material we should not recommend them as well?  Again just a thought.  This is why we don't put our trust in any man but wholly in the words of God found in the KJV.  Again we can learn from these men even if they have their assumptions and speculations and errors in their words.

Titus 2:1 ¶ But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine:

1 Timothy 1:3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,

1 Timothy 6:3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;


Thank Brother George for the input.  As it indeed helps all of us know that men are fallible and the bible of the KJV is God's True, preserved, inspired, infallible word For English speaking people of today.
Psalm 49:3 My mouth shall speak of wisdom; and the meditation of my heart [shall be] of understanding.

www.chettesblog.wordpress.com
User avatar
Chette
 
Posts: 890
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 1:08 am
Location: Virginia

Re: The "T's" and "Y's" Of the King James Bible By Dave Rees

Postby George » Thu Jul 03, 2014 3:01 pm

Aloha Brother Chette,

Sorry for the delay, but I have had a hard time digesting your response to my post and have pondered over exactly how I should reply to it - so here goes:

I give up trying to persuade you concerning "leaven" in today's churches of God! I guess today's 'leaven' is different from the "leaven" [1 Corinthians 5:6; Galatians 5:9] back in the Apostle Paul's day! I am weary of warning you against the vast amount of error and false doctrine being taught by today's "pastors" and Bible commentators in today's so-called Fundamentalist and Evangelical churches. But I guess just as long as the 'leaven' is being introduced by a "pastor" that we can overlook it and proceed to recommend men who are either careless in "rightly dividing the word of truth", or worse yet, who deliberately twist and wrest the Holy words of God for their own purposes? (I'm being sarcastic - of course).

Over the past few years, why have I bothered commenting by writing numerous essays on the issue of "leaven" in today's churches of God (for example: See the entire Thread on "WHO IS THE LEADER OF YOUR CHURCH") when professed Bible believers continue to ignore practically all of the scriptural warnings that I have cited? What's the use - I must sound like a broken record to believers, and sometimes I feel "as one that beateth the air" [1 Corinthians 9:26].

What I want to know is: When preaching the word of God, WHY is it so difficult for most of today’s preachers to clearly distinguish between personal speculation, conjecture, and assumption and the PURE WORDS of God? When teaching the word of God, WHY is it so hard for today’s Bible teachers and commentators to stick to SOUND DOCTRINE and avoid all error and false doctrine? What’s the problem?

If a professed Bible believer truly believes: “For the word of the LORD is right; and all his works are done in truth.” [Psalms 33:4], WHY would they not seek to preach and teach God’s Holy word just as it is - without leavening it by inserting their own private interpretations [2 Peter 1:20] and opinions as if they were ‘the truth’?  

If a preacher or a Bible teacher genuinely has the highest regard for the Holy words of God [Job 23:12], why not clearly distinguish between their personal speculations, conjectures, assumptions, and private interpretations and the pure words of God when preaching or teaching God’s word [Psalms 119:172; Proverbs 22: 20-21]? It’s not that difficult to do – that is IF a person truly has a high regard and genuine love of the Holy words of God and is sincerely concerned about leavening them with their own opinions! If a professed Bible believer does offer a private interpretation (i.e. speculation or conjecture) while preaching or teaching God’s Holy word, why not plainly declare that it’s their opinion and distinguish between their opinion and the Holy words of God? WHY ‘mingle’ the two things together and cause confusion and/or error? To be perfectly clear: I am not advocating refraining from stating an opinion, what I am advocating for is clearly distinguishing between speculations, conjectures, assumptions, and private interpretations and the Holy words of God!

All too often, today’s "pastors", teachers, and commentators fail to advocate reliance on God’s holy words. Instead they encourage Christians to look to men's words (in books, tapes, videos, etc.) for the answers to spiritual matters and all of the issues of life. “Respect of persons” is both a sin and the curse of modern day Christianity [James 2:9; Proverbs 28:21]. A man (or woman) who highly regards men’s words can not (or will not) think highly of God’s words, and will have little or no regard for them!

Although I am discouraged by your reply, I shall continue to warn the brethren concerning this matter, for if I were to do otherwise I would not be faithful to Almighty God, Who has called me to be a "watchman" concerning His Holy word.

Acts 20:26 Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men.
27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.
28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.
32 And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.
George Anderson    http://www.thywordistruthkjv.com/

. . . . . yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written . . . . . Romans 3:4
User avatar
George
 
Posts: 639
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 12:17 am
Location: Lancaster, Ohio

Re: The "T's" and "Y's" Of the King James Bible By Dave Rees

Postby Chette » Fri Jul 04, 2014 1:08 am

Hi George,

I not sure why you would be so discouraged at my response.  I simply observed some of the same speculations and teachings in Ruckman's books as that of what Dave Reese said.  If we, I or You would say, "we cannot to recommend any books of a man based on his statements, speculations and opinions of Philemon as a leader of the church and that Onesimus stole something", then we would have to say the same for all men and not recommend their books based on the fact they makes those same observation, opinions, speculations and statements in their own writings.  I have read many a godly man say those same things about Philemon and Onesimus in my last 19 plus years as a Christian and yes some of them are professed KJV Bible believers.

And I fully agree many many many teachers of God's word today add ton's of speculations, opinions and as to why those who profess their loyalty to the KJV and do the same I have no Idea.  I am glad I am not the judge of any man's heart but my own. Because being the judge of this one man's heart is quite enough. If I have to go around and judge every man's heart motive as to why they make these statements, opinions and speculations I would quite possibly go mad.

It is like people who read the verses on Baptism, these people have created their own convictions about Baptism and will war over it if given a chance.  If you read everyone of them, no matter if it is a spiritual baptism or water baptism, you will never see the mode of operation as to the exact method John the Baptist the 12, Annias or Paul and Silas used when they baptized at the final moment of doing it.  

This we do know 1) One went down into the water and was baptized and then went straight up out of the water, 2) in another, two went down into the water and as they came up out of the water one was transported away.  3) Water baptism involved water.  How John and Philip baptized them at the final moments after they went down into the water was not revealed.  Did John Pour water over his head?  Did Philip Pour water over his head?  Did John Dunk him?  Did Philip Dunk him?  All we have is they went down into the water then they went up out of the water.  This is why some used immersion  as a means of baptism and some used pouring as a means of baptism.  Neither is proven correct by the plain KJV English Text and neither is proven wrong by the KJV English Text.  It is their interpretation and their conviction.

One pulls the English word from the context and goes to the Greek Dictionary, takes a unverifiable meaning in Koine (there are no Koine Greek Dictionaries ever found by archaeologist all are modern inventions were created after the language went dead), but these dictionaries do have the meaning of classical Greek attached to them, and in the case of Baptizo Immerse, pour, and wash can be found, and the one studying places their choice of meaning such as immerse on the English word and then reinserts it into the English text and says the mode of Baptism is immersion.  But he had to run to the Greek to make a case that the final mode in which John the bapt and Philip baptized was immersion even though the scripture gives no instruction or indication of what was the actual final step of Baptism.

Then another one looks upon how God had given the Holy Ghost to the Gentiles Peter says he poured in out  Acts 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.  of course the gift Peter is talking about was (I believe it was) the gift of speaking in Hebrew tongue, as Peter and the other 15 men were given the tongues of the 16 nations as listed out in Acts 1 and 2.  They learn from Paul, the gifts are given by the Holy Ghost in 1 Cor 12 to all believers as he sees fit (my own words), and these Gifts followed by the wisdom we were all baptized into Christ and are one body, as found in the same book and chapter  1Cor 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.  Some denominations (Pentecostals and Charismatics) would call the tongue speaking a sign of being baptized in the spirit, it is because of these verses here as well of what was seen in Act 2 and by what Peter shared in Acts 10.  One comes to the conclusion that if God baptized in the spirit by pouring out the gifts on men why would it not be concluded that Baptism mode could have been pouring out of water over the head of the person in the water.   Then as they continue their study they to go to the Greek dictionary and choose the meaning "to pour" and place it on the English text and hence some Episcopalian denominations claim pouring is the means of Baptism.

Further more when Paul and Silas baptized the Philippian Jailer in Act 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.   We are not even told they were in water at all.  All we see is one minute the jailer is washing their stripes and the next he and all that was his were baptized by Paul and Silas.  As far as the text goes no mode was shared at all, no indication of there being a body of water they went down into or came up out of.  As far as we can tell all there was was a basin of water with a rag or a cup the jailer washed their striped with and that is what was used and that is speculation based on how one washes wounds.

So who do we decide is correct?  the one who goes to the Greek or the one who compares spiritual to spiritual (though not being a kjv believer) and and goes to the Greek also?  What a tangled web they spin, but are they purposely leavening God's word?  We can not make that call for we don't know their hearts.

It is funny but none would ever say they wanted the baptism of crucifixion.  And none wants the baptism of fire of God's judgement.  Those two modes of Baptism are not in question, but the mode of water baptism is and the context of all water baptism only shows water is involved but at the final moment of its initiation we are not told if anyone was immersed or if water was poured out.

Personal convictions and opinions and speculations are part of the nature of the division of Christianity.  You and I could change it but we are but a small percentage, and we are nobodies in men's eyes.  But our lives and the way we revere God's word is seen by the one who matters most.

I will give an example of a conclusion I hold and I state "this is my opinion" as I would never say God's word says this.  I Kings 19 Elijah was fed angel bread and water by an angel and he went 40 days and 40 nights in the strength he received by that food and drink, I don't think that was ordinary bread and water. (Where did the angel get the bread and water?  He didn't steal it for an angel is holy and could not steal.  He had no place to make it so the only conclusion is the angel brought it with him from heaven).  And if that water was living water from the throne of God it is no wonder Elijah never died and God took him up in the manner in which he did.  Living water gives eternal life.  If that bread was charbroiled manna the same food that Israel ate for 40 years it is no wonder they stayed so healthy on basically nothing but manna the whole time they wandered.

I guess men are men and we/they don't know everything and sometimes we/they put in our two cents.  And yes they should identify where they are guessing rather than state it as fact.  I too was taught in Bible College Philemon was a leader and that Onesimus stole something.  That teaching as been around for centuries.  And who was the first to teach it?  We don't know anymore, it has been around for so long it has been forgotten.  If the later be true then it is tradition and in Reese's and Ruckman's case they may just be sharing traditional teaching on Philemon and Onesimus, one being a leader and one being a thief.

I don't think we need to be so hard on Ruckman, Reese or any man for teaching that about Philemon and Onesimus.  But we do need to be hard on ourselves that we keep to our own convictions and yours is sticky to scriptures for all things you share about scriptures and that is a noble endeavor and God sees your heart as you study in your home and will reward you openly for staying so loyal to his words.

I took time to read your teaching on leaders in the church but I doubt Reese or Ruckman, or even a majority of Christians have read it, even though I have recommended your leadership teaching on other sites.  I even taught it to my members in part of the series on leadership I did before we left .  Don't be discouraged if your teaching is correct and of God's word it will not return void.

Do you think these guys when they teach sincerely believe what they are teaching is false?  I don't think they do.  Many of them don't use the KJV,  Many of them don't believe there is a Bible today that is without error they can hold in their hand.  They have that against them but they may have never set out to teach falsely.  But most false teachers do set out too especially during Paul's day as they were trying to unteach what Paul taught.  Today most teachers are not doing that.

Many of these guys are taught as I, "that you must dig out the hidden treasure found in the field of God's word" which at best is a twisting of God's word but I don't think the OIA method inventors set out to twist God's word.  But in reality, you have shown me that God's word is not hidden to those whose heart is right and trust in His power to have preserved his word whole and complete and without error in a Bible one can hold in his hand and read for himself the very words of God and lets the Holy Ghost teach.  I have seen more truths from God's word just leap off the pages as I read it and believed it by faith through His grace, the same exact way I was saved and received Christ and so I live.  

I feel sorry for those who don't believe the way we do.  They are hindering their own spiritual walk and all they are doing is digging out their own ideas and thoughts and placing them on God's word to create what ever teaching they want to see come from the text.  Kind of like the Baptism scriptures above.  This is the cause of why so much is added.  But not just that, many are trying to make followers after themselves and are have self-serving motives so entertainment is part of the reason for addition to get bigger crowds to make bigger money to feed their god, their belly.  

Php 1:15 Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will:
16 The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds:
17 But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel.
18 What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.


You can only pity them in the end as it is a sad fact of Christianity today.

As far as leaven, don't you see that the particular leaven you found in Reese's teaching is also in Ruckman's and you recommend Ruckman without the same reservations and comments you placed on Reese?  

The leaven Jesus spoke of was Hypocrisy, saying one thing and doing another.  This some of the Pharisees and Sadducees and the scribes were truly guilty of.

The leaven spoken of by Paul was allowing an very unusual type of fornication go without rebuke and judgement in 1Cor 5, and he said the leaven in Galatians was adding to the work of Christ the keeping of the law of circumcision for salvation.  I know that it is easy to carry these verses over to everything else in practice and law, but then where does one draw the line.  Does not the context limit it to those things where they spoke of Leaven.

I understand what you are saying, now and in the past, I am on guard more today than ever.  I don't think Reese purposely set out to leaven God's word and I really doubt he would even think he did leaven God's word in saying Philemon was the leader and Onesimus was a thief.  I think as stated he just past something he learned from men in the past on in what he taught.  I doubt any of his teachers and the ones before that ever even purposely set out to leaven God's words when they taught it.  And I wonder does God feel the same way as you do about it?  God is graceful and I pray you will be just as graceful as his is.

So in conclusion all I can say is "I am sorry for posting Reese's teaching on the web site.  So please forgive me".  And I will not post anything from any other men from this point forward ever again on this site as it always seems to upset you and that was never my intention.  My intention was to try and garner more people to come visit the site.  But I hadn't realized that you are restricting the site to you and what you feel is not leaven or corruption.  If you like you can remove the thread.
Psalm 49:3 My mouth shall speak of wisdom; and the meditation of my heart [shall be] of understanding.

www.chettesblog.wordpress.com
User avatar
Chette
 
Posts: 890
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 1:08 am
Location: Virginia

Re: The "T's" and "Y's" Of the King James Bible By Dave Rees

Postby Chette » Fri Jul 04, 2014 2:05 pm

Here are some interesting observations by men of God concerning Philemon and Onesimus that are not found in the scriptures.

Smith's Bible dictionary - Philemon was the bishop of the church
Intl Bible encyclopedia - Apphila was Philemon's wife and Archippus was his son
Easton's - Philemon probably held some position in the church


Intl Bible Encyclopedia - Onesimus was still a heathen when he defrauded his master
Easton's - Onesimus, a slave who after robbing his master Philemon, fled to Rome.

Halls Comm. - Our fellow laborer in the Gospel, Bishop or Pastor of the Church at Colosse.
J F B Comm - Greek, "But it (thou art not inclined to 'receive him' because) he hath wronged thee"; a milder term than "robbed thee." Onesimus seems to have confessed some such act to Paul
Matthew Henry Comm - Philemon, one of note and probably a minister in the church of Colosse, a city of Phrygia, had a servant named Onesimus, who, having purloined his goods,
Philip Dodridge comm - one of the pastors of the Colossian church
Robertson's NT word Pics - He had probably robbed Philemon before he ran away


Need I go on.  

Should we totally condemn and pass judgement on Dave Reese for these statements about Philemon and Onesimus?

Should we condemn him for his presenting that this last letter of the NT epistles is a type of Imputation and Justification?

Though I understand your point that it does change the word of God if one makes their opinion the same as the words of God but I don't think he was doing that.  You are correct the teaching in not in the text but in men's interpretation of what Paul's says and those are not necessarily true.

As far as it being a type of Imputation and Justification.  I would have to say it was a very good observation of the text on Reese's part.  And does it not appear that those types are there?  Just as if one would say Joseph was a Type of Christ?

George, I really think you can exercise a bit more grace towards people and their opinions, speculations and assumptions.  I am not saying you need to compromise your standing, just give them a bit more grace.  Point it out but don't be so quick to meet out judgement of a person's heart.  None of us are prefect and surely you have not attained it yet.  Right?

Be blessed and be a blessing
Psalm 49:3 My mouth shall speak of wisdom; and the meditation of my heart [shall be] of understanding.

www.chettesblog.wordpress.com
User avatar
Chette
 
Posts: 890
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 1:08 am
Location: Virginia

Re: The "T's" and "Y's" Of the King James Bible By Dave Rees

Postby George » Wed Jul 09, 2014 6:25 pm

Aloha Brother Chette,

You totally missed the point of my post. I am greatly disappointed in your replies to my last post and I shall list the reasons presently, but first I will explain why I was so discouraged by your previous posts on the Thread “Re: The "T's" and "Y's" Of the King James Bible By Dave Rees” (i.e. the original post & your reply to Brandon Staggs, aka Diligent).  

1. Your original post disappointed me because of your disparaging comment concerning brother Doug Stauffer and your unfounded claim that “Most of Stauffer's material comes from Dave Reese's teaching” which you state was based on: “I received the info from reliable source.  It wasn't just that fact he was the classmate of my friend but that the material supplied them was somewhat plagiarized (I saw the material myself along side the first edition that my friend had) as he had the material and that material did show he copied a lot from his schooling under Dave Reese.  My point about making it clear that the Reese taught Stauffer was to add some interest in Reese's material.  The above post by Dilligent now sheds light in his later Editions of One Book he now gives a "special thanks to Reese" which was well over due.

Regardless of your intent, my point about your adding those comments is that instead of adding “some interest in Reese's material” you ended up criticizing brother Doug Stauffer and praising Dave Reese which, according to the Holy Bible was divisive [1 Corinthians 1:10] and amounted to “respect of persons” [1 Corinthians 1:10-16].

Romans 14:19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.

1 Corinthians 14:26 ¶ How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

Ephesians 4:29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.

WHY make mention of those things – even if they were all true? HOW were your comments “edifying” [Romans 14:19; 1 Corinthians 14:26; Ephesians 4:29] to the brethren when you ended up denigrating a fellow brother in Christ and extolling brother Dave Reese at Dave Stauffer’s expense? I would like to know, WHERE was the spiritual “profit” in your comments?

In my first reply to your original post I purposely avoided making these personal observations about your comments in order to avoid a confrontation and possibly offending you; however by your replies to both Diligent and me it is obvious that you were offended anyway.

QUESTION: WHY did your Christian “friend” make a point of showing you the information that he had concerning brothers Stauffer and Reese? WHAT was he trying to accomplish by sharing that information – if not to belittle, defame, denigrate, and malign brother Dave Stauffer and honor, commend, and exalt brother Dave Reese at brother Stauffer’s expense? If that’s not “respect of persons” then what is?

QUESTION: WHY are today’s Christians continually engaged in this “one ups men ship” (i.e. my teacher is so much smarter than your teacher! My “pastor” knows much more than your “pastor”! My preacher has saved more souls and baptized more people than your preacher!) WHAT is this all about if not “respect of persons” [Romans 2:11; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 3:25; James 2:1,9; 1Peter 1:17]?

I haven’t discussed this matter with brother Brandon Staggs, but from his reply to your post, I get the feeling that he was offended by your remarks just as I was. Instead of adding “some interest in Reese's material” you raised my hackles because the comments were not only totally unnecessary, but they were also offensive, divisive, and uncalled for.

WHO CARES WHERE Doug Stauffer got his material for his book? WHY is it important? Don’t you think that Almighty God is keeping track of all of these things and will reward each man according to his own work [1 Corinthians 3:1-23]? WHY is it necessary to give credit to Dave Reese and, at the same time, discredit Doug Stauffer? WHY NOT just thank God that the information concerning the “Which Bible” issue is being disseminated instead of trying to keep track of WHO should get the credit for it? WHY is it so important that: “he (i.e. Doug Stauffer) "now gives a special thanks to Reese which was well over due”? WHY all the concern about brother Stauffer giving “special thanks to Reese”, and then making the sarcastic observation “which was well over due”? WHY?

This is the main reason WHY I was so disappointed in your post, and WHY I became discouraged that you engaged in such “respect of persons”, and WHY I proceeded to point out Dave Reese’s failure to rightly divide the word of truth in the short article which you posted.

QUESTION: WHERE did Dave Reese get all of his information about the “Which Bible Issue”? I am not going to do it, but if I were to compare brother Reese’s material to some of the brethren who preceded him and who also wrote about the “Which Bible Issue” before him, I’m sure that I would find plenty of places where he copied from those brethren and where he possibly might have “somewhat plagiarized” some of their works.

In conclusion: I pointed out that, concerning the “Which Bible Issue”, since so many people have written about the subject (both pro & con), and since there is an overabundance of books dealing with the subject, it is practically impossible to trace just WHO got WHAT from WHOM, so WHY all the concern about giving credit to some man?

2. Your mention of brother Peter Ruckman, as if I am in the habit of quoting him; or posting his articles; or referring to him as some sort of an ‘authority’. Your statements (in Blue):

If I am not mistaken Ruckman says the same leadership claim about Philemon and that too without proof.
So what? WHY bring up brother Ruckman’s name up, since I only mentioned him in regards to how I first learned about the “Which Bible” issue – not as some ‘authority’?

We can also quote Ruckman in his Commentary book on Philemon, Where I read (if I remember correctly because I don't have the book with me but it is in my library in the Philippines) he too says that Onesimus stole something.  Should we then disregard Peter Ruckman wholly because of his erroneous statement as you suggest we do Dave Reese?  Don't we have to be constantly discerning with Ruckman's material as well?  Just a thought.  But here too we can be graceful and get what is useful and disregard the assumptions.  We don't have to repeat the same mistakes as these men but they all have something we can glean from.
But I never cited Ruckman as an ‘authority’ concerning the matter, and in addition, I certainly never ‘suggested’ that “we” should “disregard” Dave Reese “wholly because of his erroneous statement”. Instead I wrote: “This is why I no longer read the works of the men who continually make declarative statements concerning God’s Holy words which cannot be supported with facts (i.e. other Scriptures). If I have to be continually on guard against error when reading a man’s writings - why bother? It’s a waste of my time to have to continually discern between the truth and error in their writings.”  

And I finished up my post with the following statement:  “While I might appreciate Dave Reese’s efforts to promote and defend the King James Bible, I cannot recommend a man who is so careless in his handling of God’s Holy words, since it is quite obvious that some of his teachings (i.e. private interpretations) can lead to egregious errors.”

In my post concerning this matter I stuck with God’s Holy words (in the scriptural context) and I cited no one in support of my comments. And if you will carefully review the supplied quotes of my comments, you will notice the absence of the word “we” in either one of them. I repeat: I never ‘suggested’ that “we” should “disregard” Dave Reese “wholly because of his erroneous statement”; I simply stated what I, as a Bible believer, personally do with a professing Bible believer’s writings when I discover that they are full of errors and false statements.

What other Bible believers do with a professing Bible believer’s writings that are full of errors and false statements isn’t any of my business and I certainly wouldn’t presume to dictate (or “suggest”) that “we” should “disregard” Dave Reese “wholly because of his erroneous statement”. And I certainly wouldn’t suggest that other Bible believers cease reading a professed Bible believer’s writings because they are full of errors and false statements. However, I would suggest that if a member of the King James Bible Believers Forum decides to post another man’s writings on the Forum that they point out each and every place where the author is in error - based on the Scriptures. That way the poster has no part in disseminating error or false doctrine.     

You stated:
"Don't we have to be constantly discerning with Ruckman's material as well? {Of course – absolutely! Brother Peter Ruckman shouldn’t get ‘a pass’ if he is wrong or if some of his writings are in error.}  Just a thought.  But here too we can be graceful and get what is useful and disregard the assumptions.  We don't have to repeat the same mistakes as these men but they all have something we can glean from.

Are you suggesting that I am ‘graceless’ because I have pointed out some obvious errors in a professed Bible believer’s writings? Are you suggesting that genuine Bible believers should “disregard the assumptions” in a professed Bible believer’s writings even if those “assumptions” are full of error and amount to ‘LEAVEN’? WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE?

You wrote:
But then you would have to agree then with the same assumptional errors found in Ruckman's and other men’s material we should not recommend them as well?" {Again, I only stated what I do with a professed Bible believer’s writings when I discover that they are full of error. What other Bible believer’s do is none of my business, since I do not have “dominion” over their faith - 2 Corinthians 1:24} "Again just a thought.  This is why we don't put our trust in any man but wholly in the words of God found in the KJV.  Again we can learn from these men even if they have their assumptions and speculations and errors in their words.” {I can find no verses of Scripture in the Holy Bible which will support your contention that we can “learn” from other men “if they have their assumptions and speculations and errors in their words”. We can "learn" WHAT - “errors”? We can “learn” to teach the brethren - “errors” (i.e. leaven & false doctrine)? Are you serious?}

Again, who cares what Ruckman, or anyone else for that matter, had to say about the subject? I don’t. Just to be perfectly clear: I have posted approximately 614 Posts on The King James Bible Believers Forum, and out of a total of 614 posts only 42 posts mention brother Peter Ruckman by name. And after a quick review of those 42 posts where Ruckman’s name is mentioned, I can only find eight posts where I recommended his books (and often with a caveat, i.e. a caution or a  warning).

Sat Aug 22, 2009 3:28 pm - POST:  BOOK LIST – Recommended Books -

I recommended several books concerning the “Which Bible Issue”. And  books by brother Peter Ruckman were included in the list.

At the beginning of the list I said:
“Of course, as with all written material, the reader is encouraged to check out the authors' "opinions" and data. Keeping in mind that the subject covered by these books is the most important in issue the entire world   What Is God's Word?   And also remembering that God has an eternal abiding interest in His Words.”

Sun Aug 23, 2009 6:38 pm - POST:  Re: BOOK LIST – Recommended Books -

I recommended a few excellent books written by various people concerning the following issues (i.e. DISPENSATIONALISM; CALVINISM; CULTS, APOSTASY, & PSYCHOLOGY/PSYCHIATRY; PSYCHOLOGY/PSYCHIATRY; EMERGING CHURCH MOVEMENT {ECM}; EDUCATION & SCHOOLING;  EVOLUTION & SCIENCE). In mentioning books concerning “Dispensationalism”, I recommended books by David Walker, Clarence Larkin; and brother Peter Ruckman.

At the end of the list I said:
“Please Note: I do not recommend men - I recommend some of their books. I try not to glorify, commend, or idolize men - and I do not follow them. One of the curses of modern day Christianity is "respect of persons" and the elevation of Christian "personalities" (pastors, evangelists, teachers, psychiatrists/psychologists, etc.) We are all brethren, and as such, we should be seeking to glorify and extol the Lord Jesus Christ and His Holy word - NOT men!”

Mon Sep 14, 2009 8:18 am - POST: Re: Old Testament Salvation

I stated:
I am “leery” of ALL systems of biblical interpretation and theological formulations – simply because I do not believe that any man can “box in” the Scriptures and make them always “FIT” into their “SYSTEM” (i.e. Calvin, Gill, Spurgeon, Bullinger, Stam, Ruckman, etc.).

You’ll notice that I included brother Peter Ruckman as someone to be “leery” of!

Thu Oct 15, 2009 1:50 pm – POST: Re: To Whom It May Concern

I posted “a partial list of books which cover the controversial subject – Which Bible is God's Holy Word”. And books by brother Peter Ruckman were included in the list.

Fri Oct 16, 2009 2:10 pm – POST: BOOK LIST - KING JAMES BIBLE ISSUE

Again, I posted “a partial list of books which cover the controversial subject – Which Bible is God's Holy Word”. And books by brother Peter Ruckman were included in the list.

Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:31 pm – POST: Re: BOOK LIST - KING JAMES BIBLE ISSUE

In reply to someone who was inquiring about Doug Stauffer’s book "One Book Rightly Divided" I stated:
“I have not read "One Book Rightly Divided" by Stauffer, but my son-in-law (Brandon Staggs - author of Swordsearcher) has read it and he says that it is an excellent book.

On the subject of Dispensationalism - "Dispensationalism" by David E. Walker is an excellent "primer" (first book) on how to "rightly divide" the word of God. Clarence Larkin and Peter Ruckman are probably the two most "original thinkers" on the subject.”

Subsequently, I did read Stauffer’s Book and found it to be an excellent book on the subject.

Mon Jan 25, 2010 10:48 am – POST: Re: Number of Discrepancies among Greek NT Manuscripts
     
I said:
“In addition to Ruckman'sbooks on Manuscript Evidence & Biblical Scholarship I would recommend the following three books by John William Burgon for a deep, insightful, and thorough examination of the issues involved with "manuscript evidence".”

You’ll notice that I specified which of Peter Ruckman’s books I recommended (I did not recommend all of his books) and then I emphasized some of the books written by John William Burgon “for a deep, insightful, and thorough examination of the issues involved with "manuscript evidence" (again specifying which books of Burgon’s that I recommended).

Mon Feb 08, 2010 10:03 pm – POST: Re: Peter S. Ruckman - Bible Believer or Heretic?

I stated:
“Aloha Brother Bill,

I greatly appreciate your reasonable comments. Brother Peter Ruckman is a man, with faults like any other man. I don't always agree with him (examples: I disagree with him on what constitutes "marriage"; and I differ with him on the necessity of Bible believing churches "Incorporating" in order to attain "non-profit" status; and I am sure there are a few other issues that we might disagree on), but he is no "heretic", and I know (for certain) that the Lord has used him in my life and in the lives of many other Bible believing brethren.

If I believe he is wrong on a particular issue, or if he "steps over the line" in some matter I will not defend any wrong doing on his part. On the other hand, I will not accept charges against him that emanate from brethren that may be jealous or envious of him, and I refuse to believe "hearsay" and "gossip" about him - especially from people who have not  read his books; or heard his tapes; or met him personally.

"Christians" who judge a matter before they examine it are not wise; and they had better beware because God will not hold them innocent for condemning one of His servants! I do not understand how a "Christian" dares to "judge" another Christian - when they refuse to examine his materials and know nothing about him!”  

The foregoing Eight Posts are the only posts where I recommended Ruckman’s books. Out of all of the rest of the Posts where I mention Ruckman’s name I do so either in defense of vicious personal attacks against brother Ruckman, or simply just in passing – such as mentioning his name when citing some of the books I have read, etc.

Mon Jun 13, 2011 9:21 am – POST: Re: A Question

In a reply to a question which was posed by yourself concerning punctuation in the King James Bible. I cited brother Ruckman’s Reference Bible in pointing out the misplacement of the Paragraph Symbol ¶ – i.e. the “Pilcrow” (¶) - in Ephesians 5:21 (instead of Ephesians 5:22 where it belongs). This misplacement of the Pilcrow (by the Publisher) is quite common in many of the King James Bibles being printed today.

Please notice I did not even quote brother Ruckman one time in all of 42 posts where I mentioned his name; nor did I post a single article by him on the Forum; and I was extremely careful not to glorify him by pointing out that “Brother Peter Ruckman is a man, with faults like any other man”.

Now I’ve said all this to make it perfectly clear that I do not consider brother Peter Ruckman an “Authority”, nor do I ever quote him as an “Authority”, and yet your post intimates that I consider him to be some sort of “authority”.

I do not care one whit whether brother Ruckman is in agreement with brother Reese (or is it the other way around - that brother Dave Reese is in agreement with Ruckman”? Who came first?) concerning Philemon or Onesimus, any more than I care about all of the rest of the “authorities” which you cite in support of Reese’s contentions that Philemon “was the leader” and Onesimus “stole something valuable” from Philemon. There is no way anyone can support this sort of speculation from the words of God found within the King James Bible - unless they go to “authorities” outside of the Holy Bible. And your citing all of those “authorities” proves my point! WHO are we to believe – the Holy words of God as they plainly stand, or a group of men, who have obviously read each others’ words, and who all appear to be in agreement with each other considering these matters, but who have absolutely no Scripture to support their speculations.

By now you may have noticed that, concerning spiritual matters and sound doctrine, I do not post articles by other men. On the other hand, when it comes to exposing error, false doctrine, or heresy, I will quote other men – but only to refute their words. However, when it comes to commenting on spiritual matters or scriptural issues of interest to me, I go to the Holy word of God and study the words of Scripture (in English) and then write my essays or articles. And all during the time of my study, I do not read or inquire as to what other men may have to say about an issue, since I do not want to be influenced by what other men may think or believe concerning the particular subject I am studying. In other words, I am more interested in the Holy Spirit’s guidance in spiritual matters than I am in what men may have to say about them.  

You stated:
We do not have any proof what language Jesus spoke but when he quotes Scripture it most likely was in Hebrew.  I think these men make this claim of Greek because it was the common trade language of the day much like English is today.  Again I don't fully agree with Dave on his conclusion that Jesus Spoke Greek, but what I do think what Dave was pointing out was that the copies we have of the Old and New Testament provided by the KJV translators showed that the quote in Duet had the word added but was provided in the Gospel writing.  This added word in the English KJV was done by the translators and not proof it was there in either Hebrew or Greek, but if the KJV translators added it in the English KJV book of Duet but did not have to in the Gospel, they do show by their work that their source material of a Greek NT or any other Byzantine text they used shows the quote of Jesus may have in fact been accurate no matter which language Jesus spoke at that time.  I think we can give them all a little grace and not throw out the baby with the wash.” {And I ‘think’ that when professing Bible believers accept the principle that “a little leaven” doesn’t really “leaven the whole lump” that they are in error! Is it “grace” or tolerance of leaven?}  

I know what brother Reese was trying to accomplish, but you’re missing my point – Dave Reese made an unequivocal declarative statement (absent a caveat) that the Lord Jesus Christ spoke ‘Greek’ to the Jews, and there is no way under heaven that he can prove what he wrote! WHY must so many of today’s “pastors” make declarative statements concerning scriptural issues and spiritual matters that cannot be proven? If they are going to engage in speculations and/or assumptions when dealing with a scriptural issue, why not clearly state that what they are claiming is an assumption based on ‘the opinions of the vast majority of Christian scholars and scribes’ (or ‘the Greek’) rather than making a claim that cannot be proven by Scripture alone? This is the sort of thing that makes a genuine Bible believer look like a novice.

You said:
I will have to agree and this again is one of the areas I don't fully agree.  His conclusion may be based on the fact that church is in his house and as you say assumes that position as such.  It is more than likely he is of the Elders along with the other two but that would be speculation as well.  If I am not mistaken Ruckman says the same leadership claim about Philemon and that too without proof.

Why make excuses for a fellow Christian brother’s speculations and assumptions? Regardless of the ‘reason’ brother Reese stated what wrote, the fact remains that he couldn’t ‘prove’ what he wrote if his life depended on it! So again, WHY make a statement about a scriptural matter that cannot be ‘proven’ with Scripture? WHY? And WHY did you bring up brother Peter Ruckman’s name as if, since he is agreement with Dave Reese, he is an ‘authority’ on the matter? Again, I couldn’t care less what brother Ruckman has to say about the subject – I want to know what God has to say about it! And the question arises: is it possible that brother Reese got his information from brother Ruckman? WHO KNOWS & WHO CARES?

As to your comments concerning giving today’s preachers, “pastors”, and Bible commentators (who are in leadership positions in the churches of God) “a little grace”:

"I think we can give them all a little grace and not throw out the baby with the wash."

"But here too we can be graceful and get what is useful and disregard the assumptions.  We don't have to repeat the same mistakes as these men but they all have something we can glean from."

I can find no place in the Holy Bible where the Lord Jesus Christ ever extended “a little grace” to the men who were in authority in His day (who were in leadership positions - i.e. the Sadducees and the Pharisees) who introduced “a little leaven” in their teaching of Scripture to their Jewish brethren. Nor can I find any place in the Holy Bible where, following the Lord’s death, burial, and resurrection, Christ’s disciples and apostles ever extended “a little grace” to the men who were in authority (who were in leadership positions in the churches of God) who introduced “a little leaven” in their teaching of Scripture to their Christian brethren. And since they warned the brethren and exposed all error and false doctrine and admonished, reproved, and even rebuked those who were promulgating error and false doctrine, I shall endeavor to follow their example and continue to warn today’s Christian brethren and expose all error and false doctrine being taught by the men who are in authority today - i.e. preachers, “pastors”, and Bible commentators - regardless of who they may be.

When it comes to criticism of my Christian brethren, I am far more critical and judgmental of professed Bible believers (Christian men who are in leadership positions in the churches of God) than I am of ordinary Christians because the Lord Jesus Christ and His disciples and apostles were far more critical of the men who were in leadership positions in their day. Please check out the entire Thread MODERN CHRISTIANITY & "PLAIN WORDS" of August 26, 2009 on this Forum where I dealt with this issue in some depth.

The following are just some excerpts from that Thread:  

MODERN CHRISTIANITY & "PLAIN WORDS"
by George » Wed Aug 26, 2009 5:44 pm

“If you are familiar with the Gospels, you will notice that the Lord Jesus Christ treated those who fell into "carnal" sins, i.e. sins of the flesh, quite differently ("go and sin no more" - John 8:11), than those people (the Pharisees, Sadducees, Scribes and “Religious Leaders”) who were guilty of “spiritual” sins. The Lord demonstrated that He was far more concerned with the LEAVEN, i.e. FALSE DOCTRINE [Matthew 16:11-12] of the “religious leaders of His day, than He was with the sins of the flesh (i.e. “carnal” sins) that bedevil all of us from time to time.”

Matthew 16:6 Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

With all of the warnings (given to us) in the Scriptures - about false doctrines; false teachers; and those who would seek to deceive or divide the brethren, it is necessary to use plain speech that is easily understood (even if it is not always readily received). Again it depends on who is being addressed and the circumstance, and obviously, it doesn't give us an excuse to abuse it.
{1 Timothy 4:1-3; 2 Timothy 3:1-9. 13; 2 timothy 4:1-4; 2 Peter 2:1-22; the whole Book of Jude}
    
Brethren we are living in the “latter times”; and we are engaged in a spiritual war. Let us seek to continue to stand by each other (side by side), upholding one another in prayer. And let us equip ourselves with all of the “Armour of God” and (come what may) “having done all”, let us continue to stand – “STAND FAST”!

There is a sound doctrinal reason why Psalms 33:4 has become my ‘life’s verse’:

     Psalms 33:4 For the word of the LORD is right; and all his works are done in truth.

I always assume that: “The word of the LORD is right” – always, and without exception!

And I sincerely believe that: “all his works are done in truth” – always, and without exception!

And since “all his works are done in truth”, then anything that is “DONE” by professed Bible believers (especially Christian men who are in leadership positions in the churches of God) that is NOTDONE IN TRUTH” can’t possibly be “HIS WORKS”; and, as such, are susceptible and liable to both comment and criticism by genuine Bible believers!    

To sum up, your derogatory comments concerning Doug Stauffer were both personal and divisive, while my criticisms of Dave Reese’s scriptural errors were Biblical. And in my criticisms of brother Dave Reese’s article I limited my comments to Reese’s ‘words’ (i.e. his undeclared speculations, assumptions, and scriptural errors). I never criticized his ministry or his works, and I never called him names, or personally denigrated him, or cast aspersions upon his character.

P.S. I shall reply to your last post on this Thread when I can find the time.
George Anderson    http://www.thywordistruthkjv.com/

. . . . . yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written . . . . . Romans 3:4
User avatar
George
 
Posts: 639
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 12:17 am
Location: Lancaster, Ohio

Re: The "T's" and "Y's" Of the King James Bible By Dave Rees

Postby Chette » Thu Jul 10, 2014 3:21 am

Thank you George.
Psalm 49:3 My mouth shall speak of wisdom; and the meditation of my heart [shall be] of understanding.

www.chettesblog.wordpress.com
User avatar
Chette
 
Posts: 890
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 1:08 am
Location: Virginia

Next

Return to Bible Studies

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron